The True Origin of Reality

[Sir Doom]

(and I'd suggest one topic at a time please, as replying to several in one sitting may take too long)

How about I stop running circles around your grasp of the English language. That way, you can stop repeatedly trying to use mathematics to prove to me that you are using a word correctly. Or did you not realize that's what you've been doing for the most part?

Yeah... yeah...

Lets just keep it to one topic. Great idea. Mathematics does not make reality. Your grasp of mathematics does not make reality. Nothing that you've said so far has even come close to suggesting that you are anywhere near discovering an origin of anything, let alone everything.

You repeatedly contradict yourself. You refuse to respond to completely valid commentary, and instead simply present a book or web link that supposedly explains it all. You use words because they sound good instead of what they mean. You talk about mathematical principles as if they are second nature to you, and yet never once effectively present them as an argument beyond the simple statement thereof. You seem completely unprepared to respond to any criticism at all, in fact.

So lets talk about that.

 

[Quadrivium]

By the way it is on you to prove your guesses, not us to disprove.

Based on the fact I cannot disprove imagination, no one can disprove your long winded guesses or fantasy in literature.

Again I've posted this information for anyone actually interested in understanding truth, not to prove a point. I offer incite to specific challenges but I can't possibly make you believe something. If you're interested it will be upon you to learn. I'm just a resource for those interested.

And as of yet I've responded to every reply adequately with reason and reference. So actually my friend, it's up to you, if you want to understand. Personal opinion has no meaning in this thread, aside from talking about how these ideas make people feel and how complex it is to comprehend. And I believe I did state from the start that its not easily accessible for all minds to comprehend, like it literally may not be possible depending on the state of your mind. It requires a high level of abstraction more commonly found within mathematicians and philosophers. But I'm attempting to offer some layman wording rather than mathematical expression. Still it requires a broad knowledge base which is available in the provided references.

But I assure you if you are capable of forming actual reasonable objections to any of these claims, we can talk it through to find an understanding of the truth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could you explain what trifold synthesis is? There is no definition or elaboration anywhere on the net that I could find as far as definition goes.

 

[outhouse]

actually interested in understanding truth, not to prove a point

Your personal truth is what ever you choose.

But dont try and tell me or anyone else your truth is mine, it is not.

You can supply all the evidence you want, it is only percieved and not credible.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure what your acronym POE of OP is referring to.

Made up garage to see what kind of reaction one gets.

 

[idea]

This is true. Nothing caused reality into existence. Everything is eternal with no beginning or end.

When we describe origin, there's nothing stated about beginning. The origin is trifold synthesis, but this is more constant paradoxical fluctuation, than linear momentum. The origin is reason for existence, and information can be traced back to a dimensional origin. But this doesn't exactly mean beginning of time, as time is only spatial densities in relation to each other.

So yes, you actually have the correct notion to help you grasp the meaning of this thread more clearly.

I believe information and intelligence are also eternal entities with no origin and no beginning. The only way for true free will to exist is for something to be independent and uncaused - or eternally existent. I think our free will is evidence of our eternal nature.

 

[Quadrivium]

How about I stop running circles around your grasp of the English language. That way, you can stop repeatedly trying to use mathematics to prove to me that you are using a word correctly. Or did you not realize that's what you've been doing for the most part?

Yeah... yeah...

Lets just keep it to one topic. Great idea. Mathematics does not make reality. Your grasp of mathematics does not make reality. Nothing that you've said so far has even come close to suggesting that you are anywhere near discovering an origin of anything, let alone everything.

You repeatedly contradict yourself. You refuse to respond to completely valid commentary, and instead simply present a book or web link that supposedly explains it all. You use words because they sound good instead of what they mean. You talk about mathematical principles as if they are second nature to you, and yet never once effectively present them as an argument beyond the simple statement thereof. You seem completely unprepared to respond to any criticism at all, in fact.

So lets talk about that.

First I just wanna say that were dealing with paradox of actual contradiction as states of reality. So it's understandable that it at first seems circular, because the truth is circular at the core.

Okay how does math literally evolve into space. This is the immediate topic of concern as far as I understand of your prior comment. I've posted links to sources of this information, but I'll attempt to address it here more briefly. However it requires a little math as that is the concept we are describing. And may require more than the limits of characters per post, so this may be broken into several replies.

First a quote from Geoff Hasslhurst...

"Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1843) invented quaternions, a four dimensional algebra that uses this property of imaginary numbers to represent three orthogonal planes, which allows us to represent the motion of real things in real three dimensional space. Hamilton believed this mathematics was special and would be important to physics (he carved it on a stone bridge, as he was walking when he thought of it and did not want to forget!).

And it turns out he was correct about its importance - in fact he was 60 years ahead of Einstein in connecting three dimensional space (x,y,z) with time (t) into a four dimensional space-time continuum in one quaternion equation q = t + ix + jy + kz where the i, j, and k terms are imaginary numbers such that i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk = -1."

Imaginary numbers are not imaginary any more than any other number is. What it actually means is square root -1 (a.k.a 180 degree transition). Regardless the point is quaternions are a proven mathematical representation of fundamental points of space. Not to be confused with fundamental measurements of space which we refer to as planck lengths.

Quaternions (specifically bi-quaternions) have fairly recently illuminated our misconceptions about particle-wave duality, and simplified things as just waves of space.

So right now I've only stated quaternions is our established math for representing a fundamental structures of space. This has all been documented and proven and the information on this is plentiful so there's no need for me to defend it or prove it, the proof already is available and I've pointed to where you can begin to learn it. I'm not refusing to explain further, its just simply not realistic for me to attempt to teach you everything about already established information.

Okay so hopefully this sheds light on what quaternions are. Just a mathematical representation of 4 dimensional space. Let this sit on the backburner as we jump to a more broad analogy of quaternions, Spinors.

Spinors orignated as a series of maths to predict the spinning of objects (specifically a spinning top - toy) however this math became more significant when it was discovered that electrons (and other "particles") have an intrinsic form of angular momentum or spin. And that behavior is is captured by these maths.

So we have Spinors a broad sense of calculating rotations. And we have Quaternions an accurate representation of spatial self-interaction expressed through algebra. So let that sit in the background now and lets cover Monads.

Monads are different, as spinors are human interpretation of reality, monads are transcendental. A lot of deep thinking goes into understanding the logic involved, again I can't teach a class here, so I'll just post a few quotes to help give you an idea of the concept of "monad".

Darius Malys quote...

"Kant’s transcendental philosophy argues about the necessary conditions to make our experience and a priori knowledge of the objects of experience (mathematics, theoretical physics, metaphysics) possible. Those conditions together with philosophy of Fichte, Hegel and Leibniz are used to model our cognitive framework (and the Universe as it appears to us) as quantum computer. The cognitive faculty of understanding is defined as the grid of cells where logical forms of thought relate cells together. The grid is transcendental unity of self-consciousness(synthetic unity of apperception) and is quantum entangled structure of space-time. Unit cellis the purest expression of reason (or consciousness). Reason is outside computation but it performs computations in this transcendentally ideal space (2D holographic grid of 6D cells)where cells perform quantization and our thoughts are formed by synthesis of cells. Time is present in every cell as the rate of it and represents an act of spontaneity ‘’I think”. The grid is the framework of natural language, mathematics and is unitary system of fundamental forces of physics. Language reflects the world. All phenomena are described by mathematics. Unit cell is unit sensor and the grid is sensorium. Fundamental forces and our sense perception are related. The cells are in superposition of states from possible worlds. The grid is synthesized by the productive imagination under the categories of the understanding. In this process our apperception causes cells to take definite states from the superposition of states and conscious experience of empirically real objects in 3D space emerges. Curvature of empirically real space depends on the rate of cell (rate of time parameter)."

The "cells" in reference here are later described as fundamental monads, which are Eulerian circles that express pure reason, or... Recursive trifold sythesis. Read the paper for more on this, or ask specific questions for me to answer so I don't just recite all utterances related.

My point so far has been to briefly describe the concepts of quaternions and monads. If you read more about monads from either Darius in relation to quantum computing and consioucness, or the philosophy of monads according to its original development, you'll learn that the essence of the monad is self reflection of relative information from a perspective that transcends quality and quantity of all monads.

Now back to quaternions. The essence of spinors is also self-reflection. We can mathematically calculate the spinning of forces around a point, though that point is not definable by any means other than the spinning of forces around it. A spin is a 4 dimensional transition, we measure spin generally by its 180 degree transitions of 3 axies observed by comparing the frequency of standing waves in relative space to the original quaternion spin or wave variant in question.

180 degree transtion is analgous to inversion. If I'm facing north, the inverse vector is south, which is a 180 degree translation.

Monads, a logically proven fundamental essence of information is transcendent of informational relativity and physical relativity in the form of interconnected bi-quaternion driven spacetime. And we are all of this space-time and any relative information that is coherent as being information.

 

[outhouse]

^^^^ word salad.

 

[Sir Doom]

so this may be broken into several replies.

I'll wait for the rest, then.

 

[idav]

First I just wanna say that were dealing with paradox of actual contradiction as states of reality. So it's understandable that it at first seems circular, because the truth is circular at the core.

Okay how does math literally evolve into space. This is the immediate topic of concern as far as I understand of your prior comment. I've posted links to sources of this information, but I'll attempt to address it here more briefly. However it requires a little math as that is the concept we are describing. And may require more than the limits of characters per post, so this may be broken into several replies.

First a quote from Geoff Hasslhurst...

"Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1843) invented quaternions, a four dimensional algebra that uses this property of imaginary numbers to represent three orthogonal planes, which allows us to represent the motion of real things in real three dimensional space. Hamilton believed this mathematics was special and would be important to physics (he carved it on a stone bridge, as he was walking when he thought of it and did not want to forget!).

And it turns out he was correct about its importance - in fact he was 60 years ahead of Einstein in connecting three dimensional space (x,y,z) with time (t) into a four dimensional space-time continuum in one quaternion equation q = t + ix + jy + kz where the i, j, and k terms are imaginary numbers such that i2 = j2 = k2 = ijk = -1."

Imaginary numbers are not imaginary any more than any other number is. What it actually means is square root -1 (a.k.a 180 degree transition). Regardless the point is quaternions are a proven mathematical representation of fundamental points of space. Not to be confused with fundamental measurements of space which we refer to as planck lengths.

Quaternions (specifically bi-quaternions) have fairly recently illuminated our misconceptions about particle-wave duality, and simplified things as just waves of space.

So right now I've only stated quaternions is our established math for representing a fundamental structures of space. This has all been documented and proven and the information on this is plentiful so there's no need for me to defend it or prove it, the proof already is available and I've pointed to where you can begin to learn it. I'm not refusing to explain further, its just simply not realistic for me to attempt to teach you everything about already established information.

Okay so hopefully this sheds light on what quaternions are. Just a mathematical representation of 4 dimensional space. Let this sit on the backburner as we jump to a more broad analogy of quaternions, Spinors.

Spinors orignated as a series of maths to predict the spinning of objects (specifically a spinning top - toy) however this math became more significant when it was discovered that electrons (and other "particles") have an intrinsic form of angular momentum or spin. And that behavior is is captured by these maths.

So we have Spinors a broad sense of calculating rotations. And we have Quaternions an accurate representation of spatial self-interaction expressed through algebra. So let that sit in the background now and lets cover Monads.

Monads are different, as spinors are human interpretation of reality, monads are transcendental. A lot of deep thinking goes into understanding the logic involved, again I can't teach a class here, so I'll just post a few quotes to help give you an idea of the concept of "monad".

Darius Malys quote...

"Kant’s transcendental philosophy argues about the necessary conditions to make our experience and a priori knowledge of the objects of experience (mathematics, theoretical physics, metaphysics) possible. Those conditions together with philosophy of Fichte, Hegel and Leibniz are used to model our cognitive framework (and the Universe as it appears to us) as quantum computer. The cognitive faculty of understanding is defined as the grid of cells where logical forms of thought relate cells together. The grid is transcendental unity of self-consciousness(synthetic unity of apperception) and is quantum entangled structure of space-time. Unit cellis the purest expression of reason (or consciousness). Reason is outside computation but it performs computations in this transcendentally ideal space (2D holographic grid of 6D cells)where cells perform quantization and our thoughts are formed by synthesis of cells. Time is present in every cell as the rate of it and represents an act of spontaneity ‘’I think”. The grid is the framework of natural language, mathematics and is unitary system of fundamental forces of physics. Language reflects the world. All phenomena are described by mathematics. Unit cell is unit sensor and the grid is sensorium. Fundamental forces and our sense perception are related. The cells are in superposition of states from possible worlds. The grid is synthesized by the productive imagination under the categories of the understanding. In this process our apperception causes cells to take definite states from the superposition of states and conscious experience of empirically real objects in 3D space emerges. Curvature of empirically real space depends on the rate of cell (rate of time parameter)."

The "cells" in reference here are later described as fundamental monads, which are Eulerian circles that express pure reason, or... Recursive trifold sythesis. Read the paper for more on this, or ask specific questions for me to answer so I don't just recite all utterances related.

My point so far has been to briefly describe the concepts of quaternions and monads. If you read more about monads from either Darius in relation to quantum computing and consioucness, or the philosophy of monads according to its original development, you'll learn that the essence of the monad is self reflection of relative information from a perspective that transcends quality and quantity of all monads.

Now back to quaternions. The essence of spinors is also self-reflection. We can mathematically calculate the spinning of forces around a point, though that point is not definable by any means other than the spinning of forces around it. A spin is a 4 dimensional transition, we measure spin generally by its 180 degree transitions of 3 axies observed by comparing the frequency of standing waves in relative space to the original quaternion spin or wave variant in question.

180 degree transtion is analgous to inversion. If I'm facing north, the inverse vector is south, which is a 180 degree translation.

Monads, a logically proven fundamental essence of information is transcendent of informational relativity and physical relativity in the form of interconnected bi-quaternion driven spacetime. And we are all of this space-time and any relative information that is coherent as being information.

Monads, I like that theory, I have heard it. I also like that 4 D idea.

Philosophy cant save people from science.

I have a serious question, I dont mean to be off putting. Can you even tell the difference or see the line where you cross from science to fiction?

Edit: Interconnected bi-querternion driven spacetime. Outstanding.

 

[Sir Doom]

^^^^ word salad.

:yes:

 

[Quadrivium]

Could you explain what trifold synthesis is? There is no definition or elaboration anywhere on the net that I could find as far as definition goes.

Yeah, its not a commonly used term, maybe there's a better one I'm not aware of if anyone knows? It can also be described as 'recursive inverse deduction', but I think the initial implications of that may vary too easily.

However, Injective function helps describe this if you want to look that up too. But the basic premise though is the bottom limit as to what makes information possible.

To synthesize (or make) information three unique elements are required to interact together.

So we say tri-fold synthesis.

Synthesis of information is possible when a functions' domain does not imprint its self onto its codomain.

So the three elements are the function, the functions domain, and the functions codomain.

As long as these three elements comply with injective function, then unique information is expressed. Otherwise there is no coherence to interpret.

So an analogy...

[0+0=0] this doesn't give us anything unique to work with (on the surface for the sake of the analogy anyway), the whole time we're just considering 0 in relation to 0 with no other avenues to explore. We can rearrange it however we like but we're just dealing with 0. [0+0=0], [0-0=0],...

In this case the function of 0 whose domain is of 0, has imprinted its co-domain with its own property of 0, so this does not synthesize any new information.

[0+1=1] on the other hand speaks to infinite potential. The function of 0 whose domain is 0, imprinted the inversion of itself (rather than itself) upon its co-domain being 1.

Now we have the necessary components to develop infinite variation.

[0+1=1], [1+0=1], [1+1=2], [0+2=2], [2+1=3],...

Does that make sense?

 

[Quadrivium]

Your personal truth is what ever you choose.

But dont try and tell me or anyone else your truth is mine, it is not.

You can supply all the evidence you want, it is only percieved and not credible.

You are confusing the definition of truth with belief I think.

I'm not forcing information upon you, I'm offering explanations with references and sources for those that are interested.

You are always free to whatever subjective beliefs you wish. But truth is objective.

 

[Quadrivium]

Made up garage to see what kind of reaction one gets.

And this clearly expresses your motives within this thread...

 

[Sir Doom]

I take it by the fact that you've made three posts since, that you have no intention of finishing your last response to me.

 

[Quadrivium]

I believe information and intelligence are also eternal entities with no origin and no beginning. The only way for true free will to exist is for something to be independent and uncaused - or eternally existent. I think our free will is evidence of our eternal nature.

This is almost accurate. Any one substrate is independent of any other substrate, but they can't be of themselves without each other.

Your mind requires a brain, but your mind doesn't dictate all of the brain. Together your mind and brain dictates your body and world. And likewise your body and world influence your brain and mind.

So a reason for existing has no regression of human freewill as they are of different substrates. But free will is only as free as the world agrees with. You can't simply levitate unless the world agrees with this. But you certainly can try all you want because you have free will. And the infinite complexity of eternity certainly doesn't limit your choices of will to express. If you wish to levitate you have the free will to figure out how or where the world would agree with this so you could then achieve and be of something levitating.

 

[Quadrivium]

I'll wait for the rest, then.

sorry yea that attempt all fit in one page afterall

 

[Quadrivium]

I have a serious question, I dont mean to be off putting. Can you even tell the difference or see the line where you cross from science to fiction?

Am I? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

[Sir Doom]

sorry yea that attempt all fit in one page afterall

Then you have failed to assert what your thread title proudly boasts.

Your last response to me only asserted that I have gaps in my knowledge and then attempts to fill those gaps in. It does not in any way reveal how you are using these concepts to arrive at even a hypothetical origin of reality let alone a necessarily true one.

Your OP makes an attempt at asserting this, but what you are doing does not allow for the mathematical concepts you are supposedly relying on to apply. Instead of presenting a paradox (that would then require math that can deal with paradoxes to solve) you are presenting a contradiction (which only requires one to recognize and eliminate it to solve). Then you use the faux-paradox to invent inverse concepts to compensate and then pretend that all of these imaginary ideas somehow illuminate the origin of reality. Instead you illuminate nothing more than your inability to recognize when you've made a mistake.

 

[Quadrivium]

Then you have failed to assert what your thread title proudly boasts.

Your last response to me only asserted that I have gaps in my knowledge and then attempts to fill those gaps in. It does not in any way reveal how you are using these concepts to arrive at even a hypothetical origin of reality let alone a necessarily true one.

It's established knowledge that the function that allows information to exist, is manifested by asymmetry. We proved (with logic) an absoluteness of any kind is asymmetrical, which by way of injective function synthesizes information of infinite potential. We've drawn logical comparisons of theory of monads, theory of wave structure of matter, and theory of information. We've illustrated consistent patterns throughout these various fields. I've also provided and can continue to provide various supporting evidence for the suggested truth that trifold synthesis of nothing is the origin of reality.

Is that not a clear hypothesis?

Would you prefer something like this...

I have hypothesized that we are in fact of a reality in which everything is truly only one paradoxical constant of infinite potential, therefore we should observe some sort of constant paradoxical resonant signature among all interpretable observation that is inherent of the original paradoxical function. In other words, if an absolute nothingness’ paradoxical emergence is the true foundation for realities’ coherence, then only a paradoxical reality will be truly real. We should observe a constant inability to identify true constancy except in the case of nothingness being absolute and everything being one.

Or something like this...

• Hypothetically, could an origin of logical paradox be possible?
“I assume yes, it seems inherent of nature, and the supportive evidence is....”

• Is anything truly interpretable or measurable as finite or absolute?
“I assume only paradoxical nothingness and the all of everything are absolute, and the supporting evidence is....”

• Are there patterns of recursive inverse deduction inherent in all observation?
“I assume yes, all existence is resonant of the suggested paradoxical function of absolute absence, and here is the supporting evidence....”

I am not currently sure how else to assert this messaging for you to achieve arriving at an understanding of the intent and reason of it.

Your OP makes an attempt at asserting this,

I'm not sure what the acronym OP is referring to.

but what you are doing does not allow for the mathematical concepts you are supposedly relying on to apply. Instead of presenting a paradox (that would then require math that can deal with paradoxes to solve) you are presenting a contradiction (which only requires one to recognize and eliminate it to solve). Then you use the faux-paradox to invent inverse concepts to compensate and then pretend that all of these imaginary ideas somehow illuminate the origin of reality. Instead you illuminate nothing more than your inability to recognize when you've made a mistake.

In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.

Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. One can define a contradiction as a couple of sentences, one of which is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences. Therefore, dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions. As such, dialetheism opposes the so-called Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) (sometimes also called the Law of Contradiction).

A contradiction literally means speaking against something. It identifies an inconsistency. It means that two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. For example, the president's speech about raising taxes was a contradiction of his previous speech where he talked about lowering taxes. This is a contradiction b/c is the president going to raise taxes or lower them? He can't do both.

A paradox is a seeming contradiction. While it may seem that the ideas are opposite and cannot be true at the same time they actually are.

Are you familiar with the study of 'paraconsistent logic' and 'intensional paradox'?

You present your claim as if maybe authoritatively accurate, or as if you are holding a high level of incite with the theories of paradoxes and contradictions. I appreciate this I am certain my efforts of punctuation, or spelling, or syntax are riddled with technical error, but have you understood the nature of what we're discussing as far as the intention of the message, and what it entails? Or are you having actual difficulty in visualizing the concept because the meaning presented appears as you say, "faux"?

If this is the case can you describe which aspect seems artificial? Or as you mentioned if I am, "presenting a contradiction (which only requires one to recognize and eliminate it to solve)." Could you please elaborate and do so, so we may all clearly understand?